contracts

Getting the GDPR right for HR

With the implementation of the GDPR just around the corner (May 2018), it’s essential to consider how the new regulation is going to impact on HR matters. We know how tricky this can be, particularly for small businesses with no in-house team to guide them through the steps to compliance.

The  European Commission has recently put together some guidance on the GDPR, which you can take a look at here. Alongside this, they’ve also launched a new online tool for SMEs, which you can find here. The tool aims to raise awareness of the GDPR, and gives practical advice to help guide you through to a successful conclusion of the GDPR.

Similarly, the ICO has updated its guide to the GDPR. These updates include:

  • More information on the ‘lawful basis’ for collecting personal data, such as legal obligation, vital interests and public task, and
  • A more detailed explanation on personal data breaches.

You can find the full guide here. Alongside the guide, the ICO has also published guidance on documentation, and the new requirements under Article 30 of the GDPR. You can see that here.

If you’re not already a part of our community, now is the perfect time to join us. Here at Enlighten HR we will be advising clients (not people on the general mailing list so now might be a good time to talk to us about joining our community) on the HR related steps you need to take to make sure you’re GDPR compliant. As part of this we’ll also be supplying a GDPR Policy and a range of other employee-related paperwork.

If you’re interested, you can find out more by contacting Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

Dismissed pregnant woman loses European court case

Following a claim by a pregnant woman who was made redundant by Spain’s Bankia, the ECJ has ruled that the dismissal was lawful.

 

What do you need to know

Whilst the dismissal of a pregnant worker is prohibited under the EU Directive 92/85, and covers the time between conception and the end of maternity leave, there are some exceptions.

If a pregnant worker is dismissed, but the reason for the dismissal is not connected to pregnancy, then the move does not infringe upon EU law.

Under EU law, an employer must state in writing the reason for their decision to make a collective redundancy.

They must then inform the pregnant worker of the criteria used to decided who will lose their jobs.

In this case, the dismissed pregnant worker was informed that she had been given a low score in a company assessment.

 

Lessons learned

The case is not just a reminder of the rights of pregnant workers, but also the importance of documentation.

If you’ve got to make a group of employees redundant, then you need to be clear about the basis for which you are choosing who stays and who goes.

On top of this, you need to be clear with pregnant workers, by communicating with them personally and in writing, that the reason for their redundancy is not based upon their pregnancy. Any ambiguity could be potentially harmful in the long run, so document everything well.

For plain-English, expert advice on any of the above, you can contact Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

CJEU judgment opens door to backdated claims for unpaid holiday

A recent decision by the CJEU has expanded the scope of the right to carry over holidays to situation where workers are stopped from taking their leave for reasons other than sickness absence. Here’s a look at the case, and why employers need to pay attention.

 The background

Between 1999 – 2012 Mr King Worked for Sash Windows as a salesperson on a self-employed basis, and was paid on a commission only basis. Because he was self-employed, his contact did not state if he should receive annual leave.

In 2009, Sash Windows offered Mr King an employment contract, but he decided to remain self-employed. Mr King took his full annual leave entitlement on some years, but he did not request all of it in a number of other years. The tribunals have accepted that Mr King would have taken more holiday if he had been paid for his leave.

When Mr King reached 65, Sash Windows terminated his contract. Subsequently, Mr King brought claims for age discrimination and unpaid holiday pay under the WTR 1998 to the employment tribunal. The employment tribunal accepted these claims, stating that both the company and Mr King had wrongly believed that he was self-employed when he was, in fact, a worker.

The case

Mr King claimed that he was entitled to holiday pay relating to:

  1. paid leave accrued but untaken during Mr King’s final (incomplete) leave year
  2. holiday which Mr King actually took during the previous 13 years with Sash Windows but was not paid
  3. leave which Mr King was entitled to by virtue of being a worker whilst working with Sash Windows but had not actually taken

With respect to his claim for discrimination and paid holidays, Mr King succeeded in the employment tribunal. The third point above, however, was appealed to the EAT and then the Court of Appeal, with the court of Appeal referring the case to the CJEU.

What this means for employers

The decision is particularly topical given the recent high-profile worker status cases involving Uber and Deliveroo and others. Whilst the CJEU’s decision is not binding on UK employers at this stage, businesses with individuals on contracts without paid holiday will need to keep an eye on this case’s outcome as it could result in further holiday pay being due.

We’ll keep you updated as the holiday pay law moves on. In the meantime, you can click here to contact Alison for more expert advice.

Please follow and like us:

Lessons to be learned from Uber and Deliveroo

Last November we updated you on the EAT’s ruling that Uber drivers should be classified as ‘workers’ and not self-employed. Now one of the most high-profile cases regarding the ‘gig economy,’ most employers will be familiar with the case. You can read the full judgement here.

Essentially, two Uber drivers brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal for unlawful deduction from wages, as well as a failure to provide paid leave. The drivers won the case, successfully persuading the Employment Tribunal that they were workers, and as such were protected under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). Uber, however, continued to argue that the drivers were in fact self-employed, and so the protections of the ERA did not apply to them.

Whilst Uber appealed this decision to the EAT (unsurprisingly, given the potential costs to Uber that the ruling could incur), the EAT upheld the Tribunal decision and found that the drivers are workers. This means that Uber drivers, as well as being entitled to the minimum wage and paid annual leave, can also raise claims for unlawful deduction of wages.

It’s a good idea to pause and consider the arguments that Uber put forward, which the EAT subsequently dismissed. Uber argued that:

  • It only provides the technology platform to facilitate a taxi service, rather than providing a taxi service itself;
  • The taxi service is, instead, provided by the driver and there is a contract between driver and passenger for each journey;
  • The drivers are self-employed;
  • Uber London Limited holds the required private hire vehicle operator licence.

But the EAT backed the Tribunal’s original decision, stating that this arrangement was indicative of worker status. It claimed that:

  • There is an interview process for potential Uber drivers and successful candidates must complete an induction;
  • A driver can be terminated in the case of serious misconduct or if their ratings drop;
  • Whilst drivers might be able to decide where they can work, they are required to undertake to the work personally for Uber, which indicated an employment relationship.

Whist the Tribunal held that Uber drivers are not obliged to turn on the Uber application or accept an assignment, a driver is working for Uber under a worker contract if:

  • Has the application turned on;
  • Is within their authorised territory for work;
  • Is able and willing to accept assignments.

This means that they should be afforded worker rights and protections in accordance with the ERA.

But it isn’t all bad news for the flexible workforce, or those that want one. It’s certainly not impossible for companies to enter into a genuine contract of self-employment, but employers must remember how this operates in practice. It doesn’t matter what label either party may put on their relationship, if the legal definition with ‘worker’ is met then the party providing the service is likely to benefit from worker rights.

The outcome of the Uber case is similar to that of Deliveroo, which received a judgement on their case last November. Deliveroo is another app-based service, with riders delivering takeaway food to customers from participating restaurants. Unlike the Uber case, however, Deliveroo riders were not found to be workers by the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) after the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain submitted an application.

The CAC made a decision on the basis of section 296 of TULRCA, whereas in the Uber case, the definition of a “worker” is set out in section 230 of the Employment Rights Act. The interpretation of the Employment Rights Act is outside the jurisdiction of the CAC, and so its comments would not be binding on an employment tribunal here. In the Deliveroo case, on there was evidence that riders took advantage of their right of substitution and sent another rider on a delivery in their place.

This goes to show that, whilst genuine self-employment is possible, it needs thought out, particularly in the current climate, if you’re to avoid a costly dispute.

For more expert HR advice, you can contact Alison here.

 

Please follow and like us:

Termination: make sure you follow what the contract says you need to do

In a previous article, we took a look at the importance of being honest when terminating an employee’s contract. It’s never going to be quick and easy, so it’s essential that employers comply with the contractual process of termination. The recent decision in Interserve Construction Ltd v Hitachi Zosen Inova AG shows just how important it is to understand and comply with this process for the termination of a construction contract.

The background

The case concerns the construction of an energy from waste plant in Hartlebury. In July 2015, the main EPC contractor sought to terminate its sub-contract with its subcontractor. The EPC contractor had issued a letter and made arrangements to remove them from site with immediate effect.

Whilst the sub-contractor could have justified immediate termination on a number of grounds, including those relied on by the EPC contractor, the contract stated that the EPC contractor:

“…may (at its absolute discretion) notify the Contractor of the default and if the Contractor fails to commence and diligently pursue the rectification of the default within a period of seven (7) Days… terminate the employment of the Contractor under the Contract.”

It was this that the sub-contractor used to argue that the contract hadn’t been terminated in the correct way, because the EPC contractor had not issued a notice and allowed a seven-day period for rectification of the default.

The case

 The EPC contractor tried to rely on reference to its “absolute discretion” under the clause, and argued that it was exercising this discretion in not allowing the seven days for rectification. But the court disagreed, holding that the notice and seven-day period for rectification was not optional but was a condition precedent. This meant that it had to be complied with prior to the EPC contractor having the right to terminate.

A termination event may have occurred, and it may have been in the EPC Contractor’s absolute discretion to terminate. However, the case demonstrates that the exercise of that discretion had been expressly limited by the terms of the contract, which means the necessary notice had to be given.

 Key points for employers

 The case is an important reminder that both parties must be clear on the rights surrounding termination, both when entering into a contract and when bringing one to an end.

When entering into contracts, make sure to:

  • Establish if there are any notice requirements and weather they are a condition precedent. Read the termination clauses carefully and look out for words such as ‘shall’, ‘subject to’ or ‘condition precedent’;
  • Check for any custom amendments to the timeframes for serving any necessary notices. The standard form can be amended to allow the notices to be given as early as possible.

When it comes to serving any notices, make sure to:

  • Comply with the form which the contract requires. This will normally mean giving the notice in writing, and should describe the circumstance relied on and reference the relevant contract provisions;
  • Serve the notices in the correct way. The contract might require it be served on a particular office or person, or in a specific way like recorded delivery.

If you skip out on the details, you could pay the price – even if there are genuine grounds for termination.

For more advice on the issue, you can contact Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to employee terminations

None of like to have tough conversations with our employees about their poor performance, and we enjoy terminating their contract even less. Whilst it might be hard, the latest decision from the EAT in Rawlinson v Brightside makes clear the importance of telling it how it is, as much for your sake as for the employee. No matter how difficult the conversation might be, it could save you lengthy legal action in the long run.

The background

We’d like it if HR wasn’t complicated, but, unfortunately, the opposite is usually the case. In this situation, there should have been a straightforward non-completion of the probationary period, however Brightside made things a bit trickier. There had been concerns surrounding Mr Rawlinson, the new Group Legal Counsel, and his performance since early in his tenure, although nothing was raised with him. Behind the scenes, however, red flags had been popping up and mistakes had been identified within four months. Subsequently, it was decided that Mr Rawlinson’s employment would be terminated.  Whilst discussions of alternative arrangements for legal advice began, Mr Rawlinson remained none-the-wiser.

A month later, the Company informed Mr Rawlinson that it had reviewed their approach to managing legal services and concluded that the current arrangements were not working. Instead, they would be making greater use of external legal expertise and would no longer require Mr Rawlinson. He was given his contractual three months’ notice, with the Company expecting him to stay on and help with the transition to new arrangements.

But it wasn’t going to be that simple. Instead, Mr Rawlinson felt that if legal services were being outsources then it was a TUPE transfer and, at the very least, he should have been informed of the name of the firm to which the services were being outsourced. After realising that things didn’t quite add up Mr Rawlinson resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. Upon submitting a subject access request, it will come as no surprise that Mr Rawlinson soon came to realise that the real termination was because of his poor performance.

The case

Whilst Mr Rawlinson’s claims regarding non-compliance with TUPE information and consultation obligations were dismissed, as TUPE did not apply, there is a more pressing issue at hand. Mr Rawlinson’s claim for constructive wrongful dismissal was based on breach of the implied contractual duty of mutual trust. In fact, his argument was not that the implied term gave him a right to a fair procedure and to be told the real reason for his dismissal. Instead, he argued that there is an employer’s duty to be honest and not to mislead their employees.

The EAT found that in all but the most unusual cases the implied term means an employer must not deliberately mislead, even if their intensions are honourable. It does not constitute a broader obligation to volunteer information, but where a reason for termination is given, it must be done openly and honestly. The EAT did acknowledge that there may be particular cases in which the operation of the implied term would permit an element of deceit, but this did not apply here.

What this means

The case does not mean that there are more obligations on employers to inform employees either collectively or individually. Instead, the lesson is to not be afraid of being honest about employee performance, even if this is difficult. As more companies move towards a model of continual feedback rather than the traditional annual appraisal process, giving messages about ways to improve performance should be easier and news of under-performance should not come as a surprise. With the implementation of GDPR just a few months away, employers are under increasing pressure to be more transparent with their employees. This case demonstrates that if you choose not to be transparent, it is better to say nothing than to mislead.

If you’re affected by any of these issues, you can get expert advice from Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

EAT rules that Uber drivers are workers

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a tribunal’s ruling that two Uber drivers were ‘workers’ and, therefore, entitled to worker benefits such as the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay.

The background

In UK law, ‘workers’ are entitled to a range of employment rights such as the national minimum wage, holiday pay and access to a pension scheme. Full employment rights, however, including statutory sick pay and protection against unfair dismissal, only apply to a category of workers normally referred to as ‘employees’.

For a non-employee to qualify as a ‘worker’ status there usually has to be a contract between the individual and the ‘employer,’ under which the individual undertakes to do work personally, and the ‘employer’ must not be a client or customer of a business operated by the individual.

How does this apply to Uber?

In this particular case, the EAT found that those conditions were satisfied. In particular, it found that the tribunal was entitled to reject the description of the relationship between Uber and the drivers in the written contractual documentation. Rather, the drivers were incorporated into Uber’s taxi business and subject to controls that pointed away from their working in business on their own account in a direct contractual relationship with the passenger each time they accepted a trip. The EAT confirmed that the tribunal had been entitled to consider the true agreement between the parties as not one in which Uber acted as the drivers’ agent.

But the EAT’s decision is unlikely to be the final one. It’s certain that Uber will look to bring a further appeal and it is likely that the case could go straight to the Supreme Court.

What can we learn from this?

The fact that the Uber drivers have won ‘worker’ status, however, does not mean that cases brought by others who work in the ‘gig economy’ will have the same success. In fact, the tribunal that originally heard the case said it did not doubt that Uber could have created a business model which did not involve the drivers having worker status. However, companies that rely on the ‘on demand’ freelance workforce will be keeping an eye on similar cases for any emerging trends that could impact their business model.

Particularly, these employers should review any possible risks of misclassifying the status of their workforce, including the affordability and practicability of paying statutory minimum wage, pension auto-enrolment and holiday pay entitlements.

Additionally, those businesses utilising IT platforms to exercise significant control over ‘on demand’ workers should be aware of the potential challenge in maintaining that such workers are genuinely self-employed, as opposed to one based on worker status (although it will always depend on the circumstances).

For more expert employment advice, you can contact Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

Do you know how many holidays you have coming up?

We all deserve a break from our hard work now and again. Luckily, under The Working Time Regulations (2004), employees and workers are entitled to a minimum number of paid holidays per year. In England and Wales, this is set as 5.6 weeks per year and includes Bank/Public Holidays. This means that anyone working five days per week must receive 20 days of paid leave, plus the eight Bank/Public Holidays observed each calendar year. Part-time employees and workers receive a pro-rata allowance based on how many days they work per week.

But… wait… do we have a problem on the horizon?

Employers set the dates of the holiday year. For most this is 1st January to 31st December (although it’s up to you, as the employer).

However, if you decide to run your holiday year over more than one calendar year, the number of Bank/Public holidays might be higher or lower than eight and that can cause problems. Let’s look at an example.

  • Imagine an employer, which allows only the statutory minimum holiday allowance of 5.6 weeks, runs their holiday year between 1st April 2018 and 31st March 2019.
  • In that period, there will only be seven Bank/Public Holidays instead of eight, because Good Friday falls on 30th March.
  • In effect, there will be nine Bank/Public Holidays in the 2017/18 year, rather than eight.
  • This means that the employer might have to grant an additional day’s holiday during the 2018/19 year, so that they do not fall below the statutory minimum.
  • If the employer’s contract states the specific number of Bank/Public holidays that the employee is entitled to, e.g. ‘20 days holiday plus eight Bank/Public Holidays,’ then the employer might be able to deduct the additional 2017/18 one and add the 2018/19 one.
  • However, if the contract simply states ‘20 days holiday plus Bank/Public Holidays,’ as most do, the employer will have to add the 2018/19 one but won’t be able to deduct the 2017/18 one.
  • If the contract states 5.6 week including Bank/Public Holidays, then the employee would take eight Bank/Public Holidays plus 19 days paid holiday, meaning the employer would not fall below the statutory minimum.

Phew. That’s a lot of Bank/Public Holidays to keep track of!

So, what do you need to do?

You might not have realised the potential discrepancies caused by Bank/Public holidays.

  1. Check the exact wording of any contracts.
  2. Make any necessary plans concerning annual leave, now.
  3. It is up to you, as the employer, to ensure you are fulfilling your duties and to manage this through your holiday booking system.

For plain-English, expert advice on the matter, you can contact Alison here.

Please follow and like us:

Lecturer made redundant amid role confusion wins £55,000

A former college lecturer has won £55,000 after being told by her employer that it no longer needed somebody to fill the role she was originally hired for. Miss Anderson worked for Shillington College from August 2011 until her dismissal in November 2016, the Central London Employment Tribunal heard.

The background

Shillington College, a graphic design college, has campuses in Australia, the UK and the US. The college employed Anderson initially as a lecturer at its Sydney campus before moving her to Melbourne in 2012. A year later Mr Shillington, the college’s founder and chief executive, approached Anderson and offered her the position of head of teaching in London. Anderson accepted, and was granted a Tier 2 visa. She agreed a salary of £50,000, along with a relocation package, with her new line manager Ms McHugh.

But towards the end of 2013, Shillington and McHugh informed Anderson that she would not be working as head of teaching, and would take the positon of senior lecturer. Anderson was disappointed with this decision, but agreed to the change.

In July 2015, Shillington emailed Anderson about her failure to meet deadlines and alleged decisions to discuss confidential matters with her colleagues, as well as her “poor decision-making.” Shillington also alleged that this was not the first time he had had to reprimand Anderson, and that he was “considering the college’s position” with regards to her role and placing her “on notice” following three warnings.

Later that month Shillington warned Anderson that he believed she had now reached the first stage of the college’s disciplinary procedure. He told Anderson that she could appeal this decision, but she did not.

In early September 2016, after being told that her role would be changing to focus on part-time teaching, Anderson became unhappy with the lack of progress she felt she was making in her career. In October 2016 Anderson raised grievance with McHugh, but this was rejected. Anderson received a letter ten days later notifying her that, because the college no longer required a head of teaching, she was at risk of redundancy.

On 10 November, Anderson raised a complaint about her possible redundancy. On 15 November she was informed that McHugh would hear her grievance outcome appeal, but this was rejected. Anderson was dismissed later that month.

The case

 The Central London Employment Tribunal allowed the claim for unfair dismissal, and the judge claimed that college could not “hide behind its own lack of paperwork or inconsistency” to blur events. Additionally, the tribunal agreed that Anderson had not in fact been fulfilling the role of head of teaching, and was instead working as a senior lecturer.

The tribunal also found that the college had failed Anderson’s inability to meet deadlines, which the tribunal determined was because of a combination of a heady workload and a large amount of students arriving at the college at once. It also stated that this had been exacerbated by both of Anderson’s being hospitalised at the time.

Judge Norris criticised the college particularly for it’s failure to follow disciplinary procedures, which did not make for a “professional or compliant way to go about HR administration”.

What’s next?

 The tribunal’s decision reinforces the need for employers to be able to clearly explain, by reference to contemporaneous documents, how and why an alleged redundancy situation arose, and to follow a full and proper procedure that demonstrates genuine efforts to avoid dismissal.

The ruling emphasises that tribunals do not take an employer’s assertion of a redundancy situation at face value, and will examine the relevant circumstances leading to the dismissal in detail if necessary.

For more HR expertise and advice you can contact Alison here.

 

Please follow and like us:

Tribunal awards – calculating a week’s pay

In a recent case the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled that a week’s pay should include employer pension contributions, rather than just basic pay, for calculation of compensation for claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Let’s take a look at the facts.

Ms Drossou (D), who worked for the University of Sunderland, was dismissed on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown in working relations, of which the University claimed D to be the main cause. Subsequently, D brought a claim of unfair dismissal that was eventually upheld by the Tribunal.

As a result, the EAT ordered compensation from the University, calculating a week’s pay by including the employer pension contributions. On the normal grounds that payments are not paid to the employee but into the pension fund, this decision went against the longstanding practice of excluding employer pension contributions from the calculations of a week’s pay.

The Tribunal felt that this deviation from standard practice was necessary, and said that the law under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’) does not state that the amount payable by the employer has to be payable to the employee (i.e. it could be payable to a third party such as a pension provider). Additionally, the EAT stated that “remuneration” in the context of the ERA means a reward in return for services, and employer pension contributions are no less a reward for service than basic pay. The University was not satisfied with the ruling, but when it appealed to the EAT the Tribunal’s decision was upheld.

So, what does this mean for employers?

For the time being (at least until we see whether this decision is appealed) employers need to increase their calculations in accordance with the potential value of claims. Employers facing unfair dismissal claims need to be careful. If the claimant’s base salary is below £80,541 – the current statutory cap for unfair dismissal compensation – the calculation of a week’s pay becomes highly relevant. Where the employee earns less than the statutory cap on a week’s pay (currently £489), the basic award will also be increased – as well as all other awards based on the ERA definition such as the eight-weeks’ pay for a flexible working rules breach.

But, more importantly, the decision may impact protective awards. If employers fail to inform and consult under TUPE or, in a redundancy process, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, then they could face large increases in the total compensation payable. The final amount will depend on the number of affected employees, the generosity of the pension provision and the size of protective award made up to the 13-week maximum. But if each employee has a 10% employer pension contribution and they all get an award of 13 weeks, then the total payable increases considerably.

For more information on this please contact Alison.

Please follow and like us:

The Supreme Court has ruled that employment tribunal fees are unlawful

The government suffered a heavy defeat on 26th July after the Supreme Court ruled that employment tribunal fees are unlawful and the government will now have to repay up to £32m to claimants, relating to claims dating back to April 2013.

Brought forward by the Unison union Lord Reed, the judgment said that the fees were unlawful because of their effects on access to justice. Introduced in 2013 and costing between £390 and £1200, the fees have been said to prevent access to justice for workers unable to fund their case.

“The making of the Fees Order was not a lawful exercise of those powers, because the prescribed fees interfere unjustifiably with the right of access to justice under both the common law and EU law, frustrate the operation of Parliamentary legislation granting employment rights, and discriminate unlawfully against women and other protected groups.”

While the fees were brought in by the government to reduce the number of malicious and weak cases, after 3 years there had been a 79% reduction in cases brought forward.

Discrimination cases cost more for claimants because of the complexity and time hearings took. The Supreme Court found this was indirectly discriminatory because a higher proportion of women would bring discrimination cases.

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis has said: “This is absolutely a tremendous victory, it’s probably the biggest victory of employment rights in this country.”

So what now?

In order to deal with this massive backlog of repayment and claims the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals have issued Case Management Orders.

The Order states that all cases and applications arising from the Unison case, or applications for reimbursement of fees, shall be made in accordance with administrative arrangements to be announced by the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS shortly… We wait to see what happens next!

Please follow and like us:

What can you do if an employee refuses to sign a contract?

Sometimes an employee taking their time to return a contract is simply a case of forgetfulness but at others it may be an attempt to hold off being bound by the terms. If a new or amended contract is not being returned, what can an employer do?

Implied acceptance

If an employee does not object to the new terms and conditions of the contract and continues to work with the new terms, it could be deemed that they have accepted the contract. The longer that they continue to work without complaint, the more likely it is that the principle of implied acceptance will apply. However, it is not recommended that implied acceptance should be relied upon. An employment tribunal may not feel the same in different circumstances. Implied acceptance certainly should not be used instead of employers providing contracts or written statements of particulars.

So what can be done?

Employers can wait up to 2 months before issuing minimum statutory information, but the right to a statement of minimum written particulars accrues after 1 month. If an employee leaves in their second month of work, they can still ask for a copy of their written particulars. Employers that fail to provide the paperwork within the time limit can face fines of up to £1800 per employee.

In a nutshell

If an employee is refusing to sign a contract it is not recommended that the employer follow the principle of implied acceptance. Employees must receive a full contract of employment before they start work and amendments must be confirmed by a new signed contract.

For more information on this and any other HR matters please contact Alison directly.

Please follow and like us:

Get our email updates

* = required field
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
+1 on Google+